Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 7, 2010 1:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

WT, I largely agree, except for the assumption of linearity and an inevitable simple pattern of rise-peak-decline. Artists aren't athletes; they don't necessarily have one "peak." Change in a singer, band, artist etc over time can be decline, but it can also be evolution that isn't necessarily improvement or devolution, but just change. There can be a multiplicity of high points of a different nature.

Which isn't to say that every change is just another kind of peak. That just dodges the whole question of evaluation. But there can definitely be different periods of strength -- and then, of course, comparing them is going to be heavily subjective. Primal power vs mature polish, etc.

One could argue that the primal power is "better" for reason X or Y, or that the mature polish is really decline for reason Y or Z, but it's not all necessarily a linear progression leading to poor old Peter laying in the bed and dyin'.

So that's my pseudo-philosophical rambling for the day :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Jul 7, 2010 2:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

and my two cents...

I appreciate a very succinct and logical proposition such as that from WT, and agree with its basic premise. But even with defined criteria (voice, playing chops, etc), each person’s very subjective opinions come into play. This subjectivity is influenced by factors outside of the artist/musician – the individual’s environment, education, worldview, religion, lots of things… To use art as an example, some would look at a Motherwell or Pollock painting just as you have described it, paint thrown on a canvas. It doesn’t float my boat – I see little in them, but that’s me. Others see a masterpiece.

With music it seems even more ethereal, because each note as ceases to be after it’s played, only making sense in sequence with the next. It’s only air waves. Even so, at least in the opera world, there is objective criteria for vocal performance. Pavarotti certainly sang well into his 50’s and 60’s, but nowhere near what he was capable of at a younger age.

If you can establish agreeable criteria, that’s fine. There will always be folks who dig that Motherwell much more than a Michelangelo. More power to ’em. I’ll always appreciate 68-77 more than the later stuff. But I would put forth one other quantitative idea for analysis – just how many great songs (musically and lyrically) came out of the 80’s-90’s in comparison to the earlier era? In other words, why would they play some songs to death (over 500 times) into the 90’s while newer material got short shrift, even to the point where they were clearly going through the motions? This goes beyond just playing audience favorites.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 8, 2010 1:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

>But I would put forth one other quantitative idea for analysis – just how many great songs (musically and lyrically) came out of the 80’s-90’s in comparison to the earlier era?>

Interesting. I tend to think quantitative analysis distorts, but in this case ... hmmm ... kind of undeniable, eh?

On the other hand, if the point is comparative creativity, then, in addition to production (new songs), we'd also have to look at something that doesn't lend itself to quantitative analysis, which is basically the band's own criteria for judging themselves -- e.g., what they do with each song.

Even from the beginning, they were very much inclined to use music as repertoire and as the jumping-off point for creativity within the songs. That was at least as important to them as their own writing; perhaps more so. (Which is also part of the folk/troubadour tradition, and in a sense, classical musicians are always doing "covers," too.)

And by virtue of listening to archived music, everyone here actually does buy into the idea that the band's creativity or value is far from being fully related to novelty, new production, etc!

I'm not saying that criteria is irrelevant. It certainly means SOMETHING ... it's an indicator ... but I'd put that caveat on it.

(Anyway, it's entertaining to ramble on in the heat ... must be 100 degrees in the shade, and my a/c is feeling rather tired! Gotta love it when all the Caravaggio, Motherwell and Mahler references emerge from beneath the tie dye here. Bet you wouldn't see that on too many music forums, LOL.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 6:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

>Gotta love it when all the Caravaggio, Motherwell and Mahler references emerge from beneath the tie dye here.

Exactly - it isn't Facebook -really.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Jul 9, 2010 11:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

"And by virtue of listening to archived music, everyone here actually does buy into the idea that the band's creativity or value is far from being fully related to novelty, new production, etc!"

Ah, but that flips the compass in the other direction - the listener can find new value from the old performance on any given occasion... just as audiences still go to hear orchestral music written 300 years ago.

Pretty much in agreement with you Althea - can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, decline is decline. I think I was positing that the band's creativity was in decline, and citing as proof the lack of quality/quantity of new songs. No wonder that favorite Dark Stars are from an earlier era. As Mickey said, "We dive for pearls."

and yes, this is one helluva forum.

This post was modified by unclejohn52 on 2010-07-09 18:10:28

This post was modified by unclejohn52 on 2010-07-09 18:11:02

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BornEasement Date: Jul 7, 2010 5:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

I'ma gunna go ahead and stand up as a dissenting voice....

Aren't you all, by arguing what you are arguing, really establishing objective theories of art? Its the same as the one classic glaring flaw in the argument against the existence of an objective truth: you cannot establish the absence of absolute, undeniable truth without asserting said absence as an absolute and undeniable truth. Focusing on what CANT be established as true leads an argument nowhere: even now, while we discuss this, we are pursuing something aren't we? Anyone who responds to this post immediately asserts that they see something I don't, unless they are in total agreement. Thus they are by definition asserting some notion of a "truth" that exists outside of perception.

Art is also thus. While it relies by definition on experience, and the subjectivity therein cannot be denied, we are talking about ONE band in ONE period of time. Select a concert and we narrow down the possibilities further, a tune, still further. Certain features of the music can be objectively established if we limit the parameters enough. By these standards, the overall "sound" of an era remains, of course, subject to the listener's opinion, but, notwithstanding, we can say that the mathematical systems which dominate music (and yes, even the dead's music) suggest certain objective standards for a performance.

What I mean is: Just as saying "the baroque is better than the renaissance" would be absurd in any art history class, so too saying "1977 is better than 1970" is absurd in this forum.

BUT also just as saying "Nicholas Hilliard was just as good a painter as Caravaggio" is ERRONEOUS so to is saying that "Jerry's VOX in 95 were as good as in 72". Limit parameters, and objective observations and, ultimately, judgments can be made. Perhaps quality and preference can be separate for the sake of discussion. Just because i LIKE fig. A more than fig. B, doesn't mean fig. A is BETTER than fig. B. However, some figures will inevitable BE better than others, and we should pursue knowledge of such distinctions as SEPARATE from our preferences.

only thoughts and words though, on the internet. Perhaps I'm a fool.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: B. Stockwell Date: Jul 7, 2010 6:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

"There is no progress in the arts." What the hell? Let me explain! The tools might get better, yes, but unlike, say, computer science or technology where something is now measurably faster or more durable, or in sports where a timepiece or a camera shows that someone is now the fastest or strongest, you can't say that Rachmaninoff is better than Bach because he's newer. Or that Klimt is better Rembrandt because he's more recent or used better brushes. No progress in the arts? First time I heard that, my head popped off. You can have measurable advances in medicine but in arts why is "Citizen Kane" still at the top of the heap? The technology to MAKE films is WAY beyond what Orson Welles had in 1940 but you can't say Steven Spielberg is better than Welles because he has CGI. By the way, today is Gustav Mahler's 150th birthday.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerrys beard Date: Jul 8, 2010 12:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

Let's see if I can figure out how to say this...I know what it sounds like in my head.

It seems to me that universal (small u) truth and universal subjectivism go together. That is, if you believe in universal truths, it is much easier to believe that there are certain standards in art, music, dance, that make some art better than other art. The converse (Mr. Obvious here) is that if you feel the universe has no set of truths, then all art (in the grand sense) is seen as having value.

For some reason this makes me think of "Seastones". I remember buying the album, putting it on and thinking...WTF? Over time I've been able to appreciate more and more of it, but never been able to "like" it as a musical expression, something that moves me emotionally.

I still remember seeing Rembrandt's "Night Watch" in Amsterdam, and more recently Monet's "Nympheas" at the Orangerie and being literally physically impacted to the point of speechlessness. Why does Greco's "Burial of Count Orgaz"affect me so greatly and so does a beautifully trimmed bonsai tree, but a John Baldessari leaves me lacking? It has to be my belief system. I believe that great art take us outside of ourselves...the music of the Grateful Dead that I like the most (usually early Dead) does just that...it takes me to another time and place and sometimes space.

So where does that leave us? Probably back at the beginning and just call me Rambling Jerrys Beard. We all get to like what we like...I hope.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Jul 8, 2010 1:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

>What I mean is: Just as saying "the baroque is better than the renaissance" would be absurd in any art history class, so too saying "1977 is better than 1970" is absurd in this forum. BUT also just as saying "Nicholas Hilliard was just as good a painter as Caravaggio" is ERRONEOUS so to is saying that "Jerry's VOX in 95 were as good as in 72".>

Just a small point, though: Since we're talking about one band, and not (for example) the Dead vs. Cream (or Dead vs. some entirely different form of music), maybe the better analogy would be Picasso, who -- like the Dead -- has distinct periods and styles.

It would be a little silly to say "the blue period is better than the cubist period." One might be more "important" than the other, but better? Hmmm. Not so much. Can you compare Demoiselles d'Avignon with Guernica and say the one is better? That's what I meant with evolution and peaks of varying natures.

At the same time, '95 vs '72 ... that's what I'd mean by saying that not every change can be seen as evolution; sometimes it really is decline. Though it might not have been irreversable. We can only speculate about what might have happened if Jerry had recovered, the band had regained its steam, etc ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Well, I enjoyed reading your post...and not just because all my qualifiers were along the lines of what you are discussing here as to when and under what circumstances qualitative rankings can be made.

My bottom line is that I take comfort in the notion that though there may not be "absolute truth", humankind via evolution (or whatever) does exhibit some meager indications of similarity in preferences/perceptions/likes/dislikes/etc that allow for us to discuss such matters in art, and that it is never entirely whim and fancy.

Doesn't mean that we can't widely vary along these same lines, but given even the band members stated that things were going south by the end (ie, 90s)...

And a big whoops on my part for you Rob; I am too easily confused, eh? But, I fig'd your example was one of what passes for art might surprise me (I am sure much of it would).

And likewise Dire--you're right that we must agree on certain assumptions, and I'd only argue that we in fact do this, as a species, to a far greater degree than we may realize, based on how communication has evolved, how our brains work, etc.

But, I would never say it's absolutely the case one way or the other...(ie, is it all cultural artefact [the subjectivity school...which by the way, is self refuting] or is it all objectively quantifiable and ranked [the objectivity rules school], blah, blah, blah).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

hmmmm - we do as a species more than we realize? i am going to give that some thought. i'm not sure i necessarily agree, but i am going to withhold judgment pending further thought. you may be right!

when it comes to cute cuddly endangered species i suppose i agree.

not sure about the art issue though. i think cultural differences has separated our views of beauty on the species scale. then again, maybe i am just over thinking it, cutting gereralizations too thin, or the enormity of 'what is art' renders any potential truths as moot.

or, maybe the ambient music i am listening to right now is fucking with my head too much to think clearly :)

(i am still trying wrap my head around something like Serrano's "Piss Christ" being called art. - subjectivity?? has to be - lol)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

boy, you and rob have a way of sucking me right back into this place (hmmm, perhaps I should reword that? nah, might as well give you an opening...eeeuuuwww! there's another one!).

here's a small example, off topic a bit: across most all cultures yet studied, "symmetry matters" (eg, in perceptions of "facial beauty"). this may be adaptive in that asymmetry indicates all sorts of potential genetic flaws. not absolute, just potential. so don't worry about my mis-aligned ears!

also, many cultures recognize the same organisms (as you allude to) in the same way as "attrative", though coming to it from entirely different backgrounds (eg, rainforest bushpeople and Rob's fancy pants butterfly chasing bird watching light stepping neighbors cataloguing wildlife in distant lands last century.

doesn't mean there ain't loads of diff's, but I take the "commonalities" as more significant if you are following my rambling to this pt.

see? I told you all I'd be around for many a Facebook moment! As Flow noted, though, the other stuff was just getting downright tedious for me (shudder the thought at a DEAD Forum, I know, but somehow these arcane/inane discussions stimulate me [yikes...] more than even my love of 68 which seems to have just run its course). why I can drone on about this other stuff but feel I had to let drivel on 68 go, is unclear to me, but there you have it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 10:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

What? You don't love '68 anymore? Well, you passed it on to me, so perhaps I'll have to carry the flag.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 2:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Ah, that almost brought a tear to my eye (seriously); not sure how to answer, but the truth is I just wore myself out...I realize now that many others largely have had similar experiences (as Dire notes above; SCBall did the other day; Rob and elb did as well, etc., etc., etc....even those that love ALL eras eventually feel they've said all of it before, and then some...ya know? As a newbie, I never would have thunk it, and I probably thought too much of myself and my postings, but now I feel all I really have to contribute is of the more personal, Facebook sort.

But, I love the thought of you, micah, and a handful of others "taking the torch" forward...and of course, many good hearted regulars, including me, will be around now and then. Hey, I've been here most every day in one form or another, so I am not completely useless just yet.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 6:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Well, that's fine except that, the difference is you *know* something about 1968, I don't know shit, so there's a serious loss there. No guilt trip or anything :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 8, 2010 9:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

That first sentence is loaded , WT
Why hack it all off ? Just the gangreney parts , ( adding a y to some words makes 'em better ). It's not killing anything/one ( posting , that is ) maybe a happy medium somewhere ? Yes ?
I'm so pissed about the review in 11/1/68 . It's a blanking review space , dab nab it !

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jul 8, 2010 9:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

"doesn't mean there ain't loads of diff's, but I take the "commonalities" as more significant if you are following my rambling to this pt."

yes - i will agree to that supposition. symmetry (et al) has been and still is considered by most an extremely important component of "good" art. i certainly strive for that (in its various manifestations) in my own photography. and if I dont have some semblance of symmetry, i better have a damn good reason for excluding it or i tend to think of the shot as a failure (needless to say, i have a plethora of "failed" shots)



"why I can drone on about this other stuff but feel I had to let drivel on 68 go, is unclear to me"

personally - THIS is the "stuff" that keeps me coming back here. I have been and still am totally burned out on "talking Dead." I mean, how much is too much. (talking about it, not listening to it)

glad to have you back (temporary as it may be) for this type of discussion WT. not to inflate your ego, but I always enjoy your informed and intelligent discussions on matter non-GD. Whether or not I agree with a particular view of yours, your posts and thoughts are always very refreshing to read.


p.s. - LOVE the description of "Rob's neighbors" - a true LOL moment :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

An Oak Tree certainly divides opinion - you'll probably find as many people likely to call it a work of genius as there are those who'll denounce it as shameless charlatanry. Damien Hurst said it was 'the greatest piece of conceptual sculpture', but then he's a pillock so maybe that doesn't count for much. I love it because it made me laugh and then it made me think. It delights me, though I couldn't entirely explain why.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

"we must agree on certain assumptions"

Pretty much by definition civilization is dependent on shared assumptions.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 10:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

But WT, saying it is partly cultural, or even individual, is not the same thing as saying it is fancy or whim. It's not all-or-nothing. There are certainly patterns as to what is culturally appreciated or valued, and in terms of individual differences, there are psychological patterns, too. Perhaps gender differences too (I recently read the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Musicology, although I never actually got to the last chapter on gender differences, which is interesting so I should really try to read it and know what I'm talking about ...)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 2:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Absolutely correct, in my view.

What I am suggesting, primarily to Dire's comments above, is that there are patterns to our perceptions, and these are biologically based in part, and gender does indeed enter into it (though the symmetry biz applies to both guys and gals; it is you gals that really drive the symmetry pref's as you are in charge afterall; "female choice" and the like). What you term "psych..." would be precisely in line with what I am getting at...However, what you termed "cultural", would be equivalent to "whim and fancy" depending on your view of cultural evolution (hard wired or soft; ie, it could lead to consistency which might appear "objective", but for no "good" reason if that makes any sense).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 8, 2010 3:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

I'm not sure how far I can go along this resolutely biologically determinist route you seem to be following. I would think that gender-specific attitudes may well have had a biological precursor but that the maintenance of the gender division has become culturally reinforced well beyond any biological imperative.

I think also that there's no question that for a long time there's been minimal biohardwiring involved in our cultural evolution. Our technological development far outstrips our biological and even cultural ability to keep up with it.

I would also submit that lacking your no doubt intimate acquaintance with the relevant literature I am obviously bullshitting like crazy. But, hey, it's a Grateful Dead forum - you take what you get.

Including whim. fancy and guesswork.

:-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 3:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

I guess I might as well give up and accept we are gonna have these Facebook exchanges right here and right now, eh? I really must have been delusional to thunk otherwise.

I would agree in part, BUT maintain there may be more biology behind the imperative than you grant. What motivates me is that there really are cultural constants (like polygyny vs polyandry), that suggest we still do have important biological constraints independent of culture. However, in many respects, like tool use, and religion, there is abundant cross cultural exchange completely confounding the relationship I speak of...so, without going on too long, I'd agree it's complex and not easily teased apart.

But, I still like to think there is something to objectivity, whether that be derived from cultural inertia or biological imperative...? IE, I don't have to be satisfied that it is the TRUTH; it's the consistency that fascinates me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Jul 8, 2010 3:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

But how much of the consistency is culturally imposed? Are we biologically predisposed to embrace MacDonald's burgers and transatlantic notions of what constitutes 'popular' music? Maybe the biological underpinning behind the cultural glaze lies in the simple desire not to be so 'other' as to miss your chance to breed. Is it all nothing more than the peacock's feathers technologically enhanced?

And I'd think that polygyny versus polyandry was pretty much a biological no brainer given that a woman basically has one child at a time, however many partners she has, whereas a man potential for fatherhood is limited only by opportunity and fertility.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Ha! That's exactly what I tell my students: 99% of biology is a no brainer.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 8, 2010 5:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

WT , I've noticed that you have mentioned your ' facebook ' moments with derision . Some folks , I imagine , are Deaded out . Happens . Conversation , to me , is not exclusively chained to strict musical topics here . The music breeds a certain common reference point which we all share . That is why I come here . Lord , if it was exclusively music all the times . Yikes .
A happy resting place may not be exile . And let's be honest . That plan hasn't worked out .
There is happy resting place between 5K posts and nada

Now if you start posting your current mood status , pics of that vaca 20 years ago , or strange , twisted , acid laced thoughts , well maybe not the last one - We will let you know .
Has the 'smith send you my message . Where are those damn reviews , I say ? Sean

This post was modified by micah6vs8 on 2010-07-09 00:00:20

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Point taken; and today I've proven it true, eh?

Good night all!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Who is this WT guy and why won't he leave me alone?

RIP Art Modell...

This post was modified by bluedevil on 2010-07-09 03:40:05

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 6:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

>Now if you start posting your current mood status ,

That's for twitter ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 6:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

I am not sure why the biological part is supposed to be "objective" but the cultural part is not? (could the explanation for this be that you're a biologist? just sayin') ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 8, 2010 8:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Sorry--we've gotten our signals completely crossed on that one...too long to explain now, but the simple notion was Rob and I were discussing if we were "hard wired" (ie, "biological") then we might all have similar interests. I termed this "objective" not in the pure philosophical sense ("absolute truth") but in in the sense of consistency without cultural influence, artefact, etc. If all preferences are "cultural", by defn most imagine that every culture would differ, and that inconsistency would cause us to view such preferences as open to whim and fancy because of their variability.

I suppose you're right if all cultures ended up in the same place, one might start to imagine that the apparent consistency would cause one to similarly think there must be objective truth to tastes, etc., but I doubt that would be the case.

Well, now that I've babbled on, may as well continue. We would all agree that all tongues taste sugar and salt in the same way, and thus it's biological, not cultural. In essence, I am suggesting that our brains might in small ways do the same things, with far less rigid rules, with music and art. Not a good analogy, but do you see what I am driving at? White noise bothers infants of all cultures similarly, whereas properly (?) soothing music/tones, do not...so, that's a biologically based, albeit trivially simple notion of how we process acoustics. We can learn to overcome that to some extent, but...perhaps not entirely?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Jul 8, 2010 11:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

I haven't thought of that as well . Read on Ring , give us your take . My wifey and I have discussed this , but it's beyond anecdotal . To say that we perceive music differently would be an understatement . Thank God , we have the same taste .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 11:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Ok, I'll have to read that chapter now so I can sound like I know what I'm talking about ... fortunately it is short!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jul 8, 2010 12:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

could even be described as "Very Short" ;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Jul 8, 2010 6:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

Well, I left the book at my mother's, and I won't be back there for a week, so no further erudite thoughts from me on the topic tonight - which is all right because the whole thing had gotten a bit over my head anyway.

It's dropped to a delightful 85 degrees and humid here. Misery index down considerably from 24 hours ago.

This post was modified by ringolevio on 2010-07-09 01:52:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Jul 8, 2010 11:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...Rob, Dire et al.

"Perhaps gender differences too "


hmm - hadnt thought about that aspect. I would not hesitate to say that it is more than "perhaps." that adds a whole new dynamic to the intra-cultural aspect, never mind the inter-cultural.

i think I will discuss this with my (very intelligent and learned) wife for her take. Last night this whole "art" discussion leapt out of my laptop into a discussion with her. Neither of us considered the gender angle!

thanks for adding that new thought to the mix :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Jul 7, 2010 3:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: objectivity in art...

I giggle and wiggle more to the old stuff and I tend to reminisce about being there when I hear later stuff.

Sometimes I wiggle more, or giggle more. Sometimes I forget a post-77 show is a post-77 show and I that makes me say wow.

I enjoy the music more when I listen with my heart. Analysis seems to funkify my experience.

If I stand in front of a painting and say, "this doesn't do it for me", why must I have a reason? To appear intelligent? That would be anti-flow.

It's times like this when I realize why WT has taken time off. It seems so pointless. I don't give a fuck what people think about my opinions of the Grateful Dead and their music. It's fun to agree, it's equally fun to disagree. That's how you know a troll is a troll. If a poster can suck the fun right out of a good debate......TROLL. Period.

As you were....